Here's Mike Fleming of Deadline Hollywood writing on the possibility of an expansion to a trilogy.

Click to expand...

Wow, really? I've never read any Tolkien, just seen the Peter Jackson Movies and the Animated movies, but, I know many were concerned about The Hobbit being even a two parter, is there enough for a Trilogy? Is there enough unwritten stuff going on that can be added into the movies to justify a Trilogy without it feeling really padded or agravating the Book fans?

Click to expand...

It's the shortest book, so I was initially skeptic. On the other hand, it's also the least padded book. It has many different scenes, while the Lord of the Rings has many more pages of description that isn't going to translate onto the screen.

I go back and forth on a bridge movie. I like the Hobbit being told as the Hobbit. At least the extra movie is indeed extra, rather than dragging out the others (although they have some of Gandalf's scenes, which is fine). While there are fans of the original who would be annoyed by an entirely new story, it's also undeniable that these scenes are made by fans for fans. They have to have the story right and can't just film it haphazzardly as they see something they like. That makes me think we're a little too late for it.

People keep saying "there's more than enough in the appendices" but has anyone actually read them? I admit it's been quite a while since I did, so I might be misremembering, but from what I recall al lot of that stuff is just about the various lines of kings, a chapter or so's worth on Aragorn & Arwen, a terse timeline of the three ages and a sketch of what happened to Numenor (sp?) I don't recall a lot of details on the Council of White or what Gandalf got up to at Dol Guldur. Indeed, unless I'm misremembering it just says that he went to Dol Guldur once and Sauron did a runner then looked again about 400 years later and caught him out.

I'm not saying Walsh, Boyens & Jackson aren't capable of fleshing out a fuller story from scant information, I'm just wondering if all this talk about the appendices is just a way to get around not having the rights to 'The Silmarillion'. And by that I mean that from a rights stand-point, they can mine The Silmarillion for plot details so long as those same events are at least *mentioned* in the LotR manuscript.

Well the Hobbit (and just the material actually in the Hobbit) was always going to be expanded. For two real reasons.

1. Some material that flies by, will actually take a lot of time (the Hobbit is a fast read, because the story is told very quickly). I mean in Two Towers the Battle of Helm's Deep is one regular sized chapter, in a film form its what 30 minutes,

2. They have said that to have a main cast of 13 dwarves, they were going to have to work to make those characters three dimensional. PArt of that is in design, but part will also have to be on the pages, which aren't there in the book.

Then you have the appendix material, some of which is literally just brief notations.

Clearly that material could consume a lot of time, yet only be a few brief statements in appendix form.

Remember the appendix is partial, notes for Tolkien when he was going to fully expand the tale of the Hobbit to fit it into the Lord of the Rings universe, since the Hobbit was create long before all the events and back stories were created for LoTR.

I'm okay with the idea of a third Hobbit film. If it happens, let's hope the execution does justice to the other five films. But unless I see otherwise with There and Back Again, I'll trust a third film will be worthwhile.

A "third Hobbit movie" certainly wouldn't be story from the book, "The Hobbit".

Even Jackson has referred to "the appendix material" when talking about this possibility.

It seems that he was intrigued about going back to the original idea of making a "bridge film" between the Hobbit and LOTR trilogy.

Essentially, I think this would be "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen", plus a bunch of vignettes showing what everyone else was up to -- things we actually *do* know about from the appendixes, not invented stuff.

I'd actually really want to see an "Appendix movie"; it wouldn't be one narrative so much as several vignettes, but given how great the Extended Editions are....as they point out, when a movie is four hours long, you're not really worried about pacing anymore.

I still haven't made up my mind what to think of the idea of three Hobbit movies. I haven't read the appendixes so I don't know what kind of stuff is in them, or how well that stuff can be tied into the story of The Hobbit, so that makes me kinda nervous. On the other hand, I do trust Peter Jackson to be able to give us three good movies if they do decide to go in that direction.

A third Hobbit movie? Will the studio please reign in this egomaniac? Peter Jackson is way too in love with himself as a filmmaker. The Hobbit should be one three-hour movie. That's it. Making it into two films is a stretch but three is fucking joke. Jackson is the same "genius" who decided to take King Kong, a ninety-minute film, and make it a bloated three-hour plus "epic." It was a colassel pile of SHIT. The trip to Skull Island took 45 minutes. I can only imagine the contrived sequences Jackson made up for The Hobbit to turn it into two...no, THREE movies.

Hell, wasn't Bag of Bones done on a $100 million budget? That seems like overkill too.

I hope I'm wrong but I think Peter Jackson's massive, out-of-control ego will destroy The Hobbit. And quite frankly, when you take away Lord of the Rings, PJ is a nothing director.

As a business (which surprise it is), The Hobbit is costing $500.00 to make, and will be split over 2 films. If a third is made and if like its been mentioned they are only wanting a few weeks of filming (ie not half a years worth, roughly what each of the two parts have taken), then its probably doable for another 100 maybe 150 more million, but the studio would get 3 films to spread those expenses to, three films to market for home sales, and various tv broadcast.

Trust me, if they have the rights, can gets the actors to sign off of it, the studio will absolutely agree to it, hell they'll want to marry him.

A third Hobbit movie? Will the studio please reign in this egomaniac? Peter Jackson is way too in love with himself as a filmmaker. The Hobbit should be one three-hour movie. That's it. Making it into two films is a stretch but three is fucking joke. Jackson is the same "genius" who decided to take King Kong, a ninety-minute film, and make it a bloated three-hour plus "epic." It was a colassel pile of SHIT. The trip to Skull Island took 45 minutes. I can only imagine the contrived sequences Jackson made up for The Hobbit to turn it into two...no, THREE movies.

Hell, wasn't Bag of Bones done on a $100 million budget? That seems like overkill too.

I hope I'm wrong but I think Peter Jackson's massive, out-of-control ego will destroy The Hobbit. And quite frankly, when you take away Lord of the Rings, PJ is a nothing director.

Click to expand...

We think as movies as a form of art. Studios think of movies as a form of money. The Hobbit equels loads of money. A third Hobbit movie will probably make even more money. So I doubt the studios will reign in PJ when he can make them so much cash.

As for a third Hobbit movie.... I'll reserve judgement on that when I see it. People are already rating this movie as good or bad even though it's not even released yet. Give it time people.